Poverty and Asylum in the UK: Oxfam and the Refugee Council

8/7/2019 Poverty and Asylum in the UK: Oxfam and the Refugee Council

1/31

Poverty and Asylum in the UK

Oxfam and the Refugee Council

Registered address: Refugee Council, 3 Bondway, London SW8 1SJCharity number: 1014576 Company number: 2727514


2/31

This report was written by Jan Penrose an independent consultant

commissioned by Oxfam and the Refugee Council

Oxfam and the Refugee Council 2002

2


3/31

Contents

Summary and Key Recommendations 4

Introduction 6

Part 1 Levels of support to asylum-seekers: the facts 8

Part 2 Are asylum-seekers entitlements adequate to 10

meet their basic needs?

Part 3 Do asylum-seekers actually receive their 16

basic entitlements?

Part 4 False assumptions: Government policy and 19

the impoverishment of asylum-seekers

Conclusions and Recommendations 23

Appendix 1 The questionnaire 26

Appendix 2 Organisations responding to the study 31

3


4/31

Summary and Key Recommendations

The Government do not understand most of us came here expecting that we would justhave to find work and look after ourselves. We dont want to live off the Government. We

want to work and support ourselves. We want to make choices about our lives

Comment of asylum-seeker at Oxfam consultation on the White Paper, (2002), Oxford

The abolition of vouchers has been widely welcomed by many organisations, including our

own, for reducing the stigma and discrimination faced by asylum-seekers in the UK. Butorganisations working with asylum-seekers remain deeply concerned that, even with cash

payments, the level of support to asylum-seekers is set so low, and the system set up to

administer their payments is so badly designed and poorly run, that they are forced to live atunacceptable levels of poverty.

This study has collected evidence from forty organisations working with asylum-seekers in

England and Scotland to demonstrate the impact of the level of support provided to asylum-

seekers upon their lives. The results are deeply disturbing, and lead us to the conclusion thatasylum-seekers are forced to live at a level of poverty that is unacceptable in a civilised

society. For example:

85% of organisations reported that their clients experience hunger

95% of organisations reported that their clients cannot afford to buy clothes or shoes

80% of organisations reported that their clients are not able to maintain good health

Asylum-seekers have barely enough money to buy food of a quantity and quality to maintainan adequate diet, and often experience poor health and hunger. They cannot buy enough

clothes or shoes to keep warm or buy school uniforms. Many struggle to afford bus fares toattend important appointments, to stay in touch with friends and relatives, to send their

children to school. Often, it is the most vulnerable who suffer from lack of additional support:parents worry for the health and well-being of their children. Mothers who are unable to

breastfeed because they are HIV+ or have other forms of ill-health cannot afford to buy

formula milk. Disabled asylum-seekers struggle to receive the extra help they need, or receiveno additional help at all.

The support that asylum-seekers receive, in cash or in kind, does not equate to that received byUK residents claiming Income Support, which is generally recognised as the minimum level

of income required to maintain an acceptable standard of living. The Income Support system

is not simply a flat-rate payment, but is the gateway to a complex system of premiumpayments, passported benefits and emergency payments, all of which are designed to help

poor people to meet additional essential costs. Premiums are payable for families with

children, people with disability and the elderly. Social fund payments help to meet the cost of

funerals, winter fuel or other emergencies. The Welfare Foods scheme provides milk tokensand vitamins in recognition of the needs of pregnant women, nursing mothers and young

children. Asylum-seekers are not entitled to claim any of these additional benefits.

4


5/31

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that many asylum-seekers do not even receive the

support to which they are entitled, or receive it late. Weekly allowances and occasional

clothing allowances from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) fail to arrive, andwhen they contact NASS to find out why, can get no satisfactory response. Tight regulations

and delays in payments mean that mothers often do not receive maternity payments until well

after the birth of their baby. Inadequate regulation and inspection of property by NASS meansthat some accommodation providers do not fulfil their contracts to pay for utilities and provide

adequate furniture and household equipment.

Based on the evidence provided in this study, we believe that asylum-seekers must beprovided with a level of support that is equal to Income Support even though we view

Income Support in itself as insufficient to sustain a basic livelihood. We urge the Government

to implement the following changes to the system of support for asylum-seekers as soon aspossible. Here we set out our key recommendations (more detailed recommendations are

identified on pages 24-25):

Key Recommendations

The remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee should be expanded to include

scrutiny of the standard of support to asylum-seekers. The Committee should be

charged with the task of ensuring that the level of support to asylum-seekers, in cash

or in kind, actually equates to the total of benefits available to recipients of Income

Support. This will involve a realistic calculation of the value of in kind benefits such asthe provision of utilities, as well as the provision of payments for additional, exceptional

and emergency needs.

The option for asylum-seekers to live with friends and relatives with support from

NASS should be retained. The weekly allowance to these people should be up-rated toinclude a contribution towards the cost of utilities and Council Tax.

Given the low level of support to which asylum seekers are entitled, those with

particular needs (including pregnant women, families with young children, people

with disabilities, victims of torture and the elderly) should have access to special

needs provision and passported benefits (e.g. milk tokens, vitamins, maternity grants,

pensioner premiums, and funeral grants) on the same terms as UK citizens.

Some asylum seekers commented that the amount that they received was insufficient for their

needs particularly in winter when they require extra clothing and bedding. Affording

medications is difficult whether for over the counter medications or paying prescriptioncharges. Few asylum seekers were aware that they should receive free prescriptions and that

the HC2 form issued to them by NASS entitles them to free prescriptions etc. A particular

difficulty reported was paying for nutritional supplements during pregnancy, e.g. folic acid,and for baby requirements....

Eagle, A., Duff, L., Tah, C., Smith, N. (2002) Asylum seekers experiences of the voucher

scheme in the UK, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

5


6/31

Introduction

Most asylum-seekers coming to this country arrive with few or no possessions, and oftennothing more than the clothes they stand up in. They may have been forced to leave

everything behind in their flight from persecution or conflict, or they may have had to handover their life savings to traffickers in payment for their journey. When they arrive, they are

forbidden by law to work for the first six months of their stay in this country. Many thereforehave no choice but to apply for support from the UK Government in order to survive.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 removed the right of new asylum-seekers entering theUK to claim either state benefits, or support from Local Authorities under the 1948 National

Assistance Act or the 1989 Children Act. Instead, it created a parallel but separate system of

support for destitute asylum-seekers, administered by one national body, the National AsylumSupport Service (NASS). The package of support originally provided by NASS included a

weekly allowance, paid mainly in vouchers exchangeable at participating retailers. Only 10

per week was paid in cash. The level of the weekly allowance is currently set at 70% ofIncome Support rates for adults, and 100% for children.

The voucher system proved to be a disaster. It was expensive to run, and administratively

cumbersome, resulting in asylum-seekers left without any support for days, sometimes weeksat a time. They found they were unable to buy essential items, had to walk miles to the nearest

participating shop, and were unable to buy cheap goods at local shops or market stalls. The

ban on giving change for vouchers meant that the value of the weekly allowance was reducedeven further. Asylum-seekers felt embarrassed and humiliated having to use the vouchers, and

experienced hostility and discrimination from shop assistants and other shoppers. In late 2000,

the Government responded to growing criticism, by announcing that it would review the

voucher system.

Oxfam, the Refugee Council and the Transport and General Workers Union contributed to this

review with their report Token Gestures1. This report, based on evidence provided by 50

organisations round the country working with asylum-seekers, catalogued the many

inefficiencies and injustices of the voucher system, including a number of shocking case

studies of the poverty, distress and hardship that had been caused. In October 2001, the HomeSecretary announced his intention to abolish the voucher system.

We have wholeheartedly applauded this move by the Government, which has had the wisdomand honesty to recognise the failure of the voucher system. We remain deeply concerned,

however, that the rate of the weekly allowance is still only set at 70% of Income Support ratesfor adults, and that asylum-seekers are not entitled to the passported benefits or premiums

which a person on Income Support would normally be able to claim. We believe that, evenwith cash, and with the in-kind benefits provided by NASS, asylum-seekers will be forced

to live at a level that in real terms is below that of Income Support, generally accepted as the

minimum income level in the UK. Proposed new legislation currently going through

1 For further details see the report on www.asylumsupport.info/publications/oxfam/token.htm

6


7/31


8/31

Part 1 Levels of Support to asylum-seekers: the facts

This section outlines the support available to asylum-seekers under the NASS system, in

comparison with rates payable to those receiving Income Support.

AccommodationAsylum-seekers accepted for NASS support may currently receive it at two levels:

They may receive a package of support including accommodation. Accommodation isoffered on a no-choice basis in a dispersal area, and should include all utility bills,furniture and household equipment. Some are housed in hostel accommodation, with

some/all meals provided and a correspondingly lower level of weekly allowance

Alternatively, asylum-seekers who prefer not to be dispersed may make their ownaccommodation arrangements, usually staying with friends or relatives. In this case, they

receive the weekly subsistence allowance but do not receive any in-kind contributions

towards rent, utility bills or household costs.

The Bill currently before Parliament proposes that the Government should be able to take thepower to abolish this second option of subsistence only support.

Weekly allowancesThe weekly allowance paid to asylum-seekers is set at 70% of basic Income Support rates for

adults and 100% for children under 18. No premiums are payable. Therefore, to compare what

a family of four two adults and two children under the age of 16 receive on NASS supportto what would be paid if they were entitled to Income Support:

Income Support NASSCouple 84.65 59.26

Child 1 33.50 33.50Child 2 33.50 33.50Family Premium 14.75

Total 166.40 126.26

The asylum-seeker family would receive 40.14 per week (24%) less than an equivalentfamily on Income Support

Special paymentsA supplementary grant of 50 per person can be claimed after 6 months (and every six months

after that). This is designed to meet additional needs such as clothing. The grant is not

supplied automatically and must be applied for in writing, in English.

Asylum-seekers can also claim a maternity grant of 300. It must be applied for in writing

between 4 weeks prior to the due date and two weeks after the birth. It is payable from 2

8


9/31

weeks before the due date (Women asylum-seekers who are still supported by Local Authority

Social Services Departments may receive as little as 50, or no maternity grant at all2).

Asylum-seekers may not receive support from the Social Fund, either the regulated fund

(funeral expenses, cold weather payments, winter fuel payments, Sure Start maternity grant) or

discretionary grants or loans.

Passported Benefits

Asylum-seekers are entitled to free prescriptions and other health benefits as long as they have

applied for a Health Benefits Division HC2 certificate. Asylum-seeker children are entitled tofree school meals.

Asylum-seekers are not entitled to milk tokens or vitamins under the Welfare Foods scheme.

Pensioner Premiums

Asylum-seekers over the age of 60 are not entitled to Pensioner Premiums, and receive

support at the same rate as other asylum-seekers.

DisabilityDisabled asylum-seekers, and their carers, are not eligible to claim any disability benefits,

including the premiums which supplement Income Support rates. The Immigration and

Asylum Act 1999 allows NASS to make exceptional payments for special needs, but these are

discretionary and appear to be very seldom made (see Study results).

In 2001, a court case, Westminster City Council v NASS, ruled that responsibility for meeting

the special needs of an asylum-seeker with disability should rest with the Local Authority.Disabled asylum-seekers should therefore now be able to receive a community care

assessment from their local Social Services Department, to determine what additional services

and supports they need.

2 Asylum-seekers who arrived in the UK before the implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are

still supported by local authority Social Services Departments under Interim Arrangements.

9


10/31

Part 2 Are asylum-seeker entitlements adequate to meet

their basic needs?

Goods and services reported as inaccessible because they were too expensive, unavailable orrestricted by retailers included: international telephone cards; phone bill; baby milk and

nappies and other items for baby care; nutritional supplements for pregnancy; medications;dentist; school uniform and school ceremonies etc.; chocolate for children; clothes and shoes,

especially for children; items in the Post Office; hair cuts; fresh fruit and vegetables (noteasily); stationery and calculators. travel tickets and fares.

Eagle, A., Duff, L., Tah, C., Smith, N. (2002) Asylum seekers experiences of the voucher

scheme in the UK, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

This section reports what organisations responding to the study said about the adequacy of

support provided to asylum-seekers. It focuses first on universal basic needs, then on the needs

of particular, vulnerable groups.

Basic Needs

34 organisations (85%) said their clients sometimes or frequently reported

experiencing hunger.

Comments

Families with children are short of money for food

Often go short if they have to purchase travel or clothing etcNot healthy food, fruit/vegetables etc

38 organisations (95%) said asylum-seekers are not able to buy clothes or shoes

We asked organisations for information about the extra 50 per person that asylum-seekers

can claim for essential needs such as clothes every 6 months. 33 organisations (82%) said thatit was not sufficient to meet essential clothing needs: many asylum-seekers arrive from

warmer climates, often with only the clothes they stand up in, and need to be able to buy

adequate clothing and shoes for the British climate.

CommentsEspecially not if they live in full-board accommodation

Too expensive unless second-hand

Buy second-hand shoes causing damage to feet50 is very little especially when people have arrived with insufficient and inappropriate

clothing. We depend on charities to provide clothing

[The grant is] available 6 months after [NASS payments] started, so people can have been inemergency accommodation or with friends for up to 6 moths before this so first 50 can be

after one year

10


11/31

Asylum seekers stated that affording food and clothing for children and babies was difficult.Supplementing childrens meals when they refuse to eat unfamiliar foods at school put anadditional strain on the budget, as did paying for public transport for childrens travel to

school.

Eagle, A., Duff, L., Tah, C., Smith, N. (2002) Asylum seekers experiences of the voucherscheme in the UK, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

40 organisations (100%) said asylum-seekers cannot afford to buy food for special

dietary needs (e.g. diabetes)

CommentsThis is particularly hard for those who have physical disabilities

32 organisations (80%) said asylum-seekers are not able to maintain good health

CommentsWhile the change to cash is a great improvement, asylum-seekers remain in an impoverished

situation, which exacerbates stress

Only if they have no additional expensesYes, if they only buy food

Poor food, poor health

An Afghani man who sought assistance from a CAB in Central Manchester was suffering

from ulcers and wanted to know whether he could obtain additional support to cover his

associated dietary needs. An advisor phoned NASS, only to be told that NASS cannot meetsuch additional needs.

Dunstan, R.(2002), Process Error: CAB clients experience of the National Asylum SupportService, NACAB

20 organisations (50%) said asylum-seekers are unable to stay in touch with their

lawyer

A further 6 organisations said asylum-seekers are able to stay in touch with the lawyer

handling their asylum case if he/she is local, but not if they are some distance away (as isfrequently the case).

35 organisations (87%) said asylum-seekers are unable to travel to important

interviews and appointments

This figure mirrors the finding of recent Home Office research into the experiences of asylum

seekers3, during which a large number (83%) stated that they had been unable to attend an

appointment because of insufficient cash available for fares. This was particularly the case for

3Eagle, A., Duff, L., Tah, C., Smith, N. (2002) Asylum seekers experiences of the voucher scheme in the UK,Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

11


12/31

older people, women with small children, those at college and the sick. According to the same

research: Asylum seekers also brought up travel as a restriction on their ability to seekmedical help when required. In addition, poor weather put a strain on the budget and the

available cash resources when children needed to take public transport to school rather than

walking.

Comments

Choice is not there. Either travel to keep appointment and starve, or eat and go nowhere

34 organisations (85%) said asylum-seekers are unable to stay in touch with family

and friends

36 organisations (90%) said clients sometimes or frequently report feelings of isolation due

to their inability to visit friends or family

Comments

The dispersal policy makes it hard

15 organisations (37%) said asylum-seekers are unable to engage in adult education,

and 32 (80%) said they are unable to engage in recreational activities at least once a

week

A number of organisations that answered Yes to these question pointed out that some

education and leisure activities are provided free by local education establishments, LocalAuthorities or voluntary organisations. Some pointed out that even these free services were

difficult for asylum-seekers as they could not afford the bus-fares to get there.

29 organisations (72%) said they have to provide help to asylum-seekers to obtainessential items

Such assistance includes: food parcels and second-hand clothing; essential travel costs; cost ofnappies; grants for maternity clothing; toys for Christmas; hot meals; use of organisations

telephone and newspapers; cost of toiletries, milk formula and special dietary requirements.

One organisation remarked that workers sometimes pay for such items out of their own

pockets.

Exceptional Needs and Vulnerable Groups

Pregnant Women and Babies

26 organisations (65%) said the grant is not enough to meet maternity costs

Problems with the Maternity Grant appear to be caused not only by the inadequacy of the

amount, but by the limited time for which it is available:

12


13/31

Maternity grants are needed before the birth as much as afterwards. Maternity clothing is

essential, as is a pack to take to the hospital for the birth. We have a separate, independenthardship fund, and give 50 grants to pregnant women for maternity clothes.

If they send form MAT B1 they usually get [the money] just before the birth. If they apply with

a birth certificate within 2 weeks [after the birth] it takes longer. We had one caseof a

woman who was ill in hospital prior to the birth and did not send the birth certificate untilonly just after the 2 week deadline. She was refused the 300 grant

Other comment

In the majority of cases, clients find that 300 is simply not enough to provide all of the items

requiredWe get lots of requests for [donated] large items like prams/pushchairs

It wont be enough for a new babys needs in a destitute situation

28 organisations (70%) said that clients had reported concerns from mothers who

were not able to breastfeed and unable to buy formula milk for their babies

The fact that pregnant women and mothers who are HIV+ are not able to claim Welfare Foods

milk tokens is currently subject to judicial review in a case brought by the Child Poverty

Action Group on a clients behalf. An Early Day Motion (No. 741) has been signed by 112MPs to date, from most of the political parties.

She has been living in a squalid emergency accommodation hotel for five months. She isHIV+ and has therefore been told not to breastfeed her baby to reduce the risk of transmission.

As an asylum-seeker, she is not entitled to milk tokens to buy formula milk, but the hotel didnot provide any. Sometimes there is a problem when they dont give me milk for two or three

days, and she is vomiting because I have to give her the milk we buy for adults. I had to fight

to get the formula milk. One day her baby had nothing to drink for 6 hours because the hotelkept her waiting. I only want my baby to be OK, I dont want her to suffer because shedoesnt have milk

McLeish, J. (2002) Mothers in Exile, The Maternity Alliance

Children

35 organisations (87%) said clients sometimes or frequently express concern over the

health and well-being of their children

35 organisations (87%) said their clients sometimes or frequently reported that theywere unable to buy school uniforms (Local Education Authorities may provide grants for

school uniforms at their discretion)

36 organisations (90%) said their clients sometimes or frequently reported that they

were unable to pay for childrens bus fares to school

13


14/31

A CAB in Central Manchester reports being approached by a Kenyan woman wanting helpwith purchasing compulsory school uniform for her two children. The local authority hadrefused her application for school uniform grant and NASS makes no specific provision for

meeting such additional needs. Previous research by NACAB has found that the cost of

compulsory school uniforms can exceed 250, and that many schools will exclude pupils who

do not wear the correct uniform.

Dunstan R. (2002) Process Error: CAB clients experience of the National Asylum Support

Service, NACAB

People with Ill-health and Disability

No organisations in our study reported any clients who had been granted additional

payments from NASS for exceptional needs. Twelve organisations (30%) said they

had clients who had applied for payments and been turned down.

One organisation that returned the study after the deadline (so not included in the sample of40) reported one client with diabetes who had received additional payment

Comments

Person with mental health needs refused. Appeal difficult. Procedures did not appear to be in

placeNASS would not make exceptional needs payment to client with life-threatening illness

Applied on behalf of someone who has leukaemia and was having treatment regularly at

hospital. NASS would give no extra money for either travel or special food

We have tried for a number of clients eg diabetic, mobility needs etc, with no success

32 organisations (80%) had contact with asylum-seekers with a disability. Of these,28 organisations said these people had been referred to the Social Services

Department for a community care assessment. Only 14 of these clients (50%) had

received an assessment, and 11 (39%) were receiving additional support and services

as a result.

Comments

Freedom bus passtook a year to get

We had to refer client to a lawyer as SSD denied responsibilityIts very hard to get SSD to take responsibility for these cases

It has been extremely difficult to get a response from SSD

People get specially adapted accommodation, but it takes months and they must wait in hotelaccommodation in the meantime

SSD refused because of shortage in their budgets

Further information on the availability of Social Services community care assessments for

asylum-seekers with disability is available in a report from the Social Policy Research Unit4.

4 Roberts K. and Harris J.,Disabled Refugees in Britain, University of York, April 2002

14


15/31


16/31

Part 3 Do asylum-seekers actually receive their entitlements?

This section reports what organisations said about whether asylum-seekers actually receive thesupport, in cash or in kind, to which they are entitled, and whether the support arrives

promptly, at the time at which it is needed.

NASS administration of payments

Three organisations commented that there has been some improvement in NASS

administration recently. However:

33 organisations (82%) said that clients sometimes or frequently reported problems

over the delay/non-arrival of NASS payments

31 organisations (77%) said that clients sometimes or frequently reported problems

with adjustments to payments (eg. for the arrival of a new child) not arriving

Comment

It often takes NASS months to add the child as a dependent so the 300 [Maternity Grant]

has to last a long time

37 organisations (92%) said that clients sometimes or frequently have problems

contacting NASS when problems occur with their payments

18 organisations (45%) said their clients did not know they were entitled to claim the

50 supplement after six months, and 10 organisations (25%) said their clients did

not know about the Maternity Grant

Comments

It has not been explained to them

None of our clients had any information about this option

21 organisations (52%) said their clients did not find it easy to claim the 50

supplementary grant, and 22 organisations (55%) said their clients did not find it

easy to claim the Maternity Grant

Comments

They need help to claim, then its easyExtremely difficult to claim most give up

They need to enclose a lot of documentation [to claim the Maternity Grant] which takes time.

Very difficult with such a strict/short deadline

27 organisations (67%) said that, when claimed, the 50 grant does not arrive

promptly

16


17/31

There appeared to be very wide variation in how long the grant takes to arrive

Comments

This area has improved over the last few months as NASS publishes dates when work can be

expected to be completed

Arrives 10+ daysUp to 21 days to arrive

Takes 4-6 weeksTakes months

Currently wait 2-3 months

23 organisations (57%) said that the Maternity Grant does not arrive promptly

Comments

Have to chase up payment. Letters written and phone calls. Has arrived after birth, notbefore

Often maternity claims go missing sometimes we re-send (by recorded delivery/fax) 3 or 4times, so money is delayed. It is needed as soon as the baby is born, not months later

Minimum 4 weeks sometimes 2-3 months

In-kind benefits from accommodation providers

15 organisations (37%) said their clients sometimes or frequently reported problems

with accommodation providers not paying utility bills

When asked Does their accommodation provider supply all necessary furniture and

household equipment?, 13 organisations (32%) replied No, and 12 (30%) replied not

always/insufficient/poor quality. Thirty seven organisations (92%) reported that theirclients sometimes or frequently reported that their accommodation provider did not

provide adequate furniture or household equipment.

There is some inconsistency between these replies, which might be accounted for by some

organisations answering the first question based on contractual agreements withaccommodation providers in their area (ie. what is supposed to happen), and answering the

second question based on clients actual experience.

Comments

Furniture, beds, mattress, sheets only

On most occasions yes, - sometimes however, some items are not providedAllegedly, but private providers are not very reliable, and usually not enough bedding

Often if items are missing we have to chase providers

We have many complaints about these being insufficient, old, dirtyWe often have complaints, necessary equipment has not been provided or replenished

Yes, although with local limitations, depending on the provider

It varies, Local Authority good, but private providers less so

17


18/31

A CAB in Birmingham reports assisting an epileptic man who had been living in NASS-provided, supposedly self-contained and fully furnished accommodation for the past 11months. In fact, the accommodation was only partly furnished and had no cooking facilities.

The client had bought a second hand cooker and microwave several months previously, but

now neither work and he cannot afford to replace them.

Dunstan R. (2002) Process Error: CAB clients experience of the National Asylum Support

Service, NACAB

18


19/31

Part 4 False assumptions: Government policies and the

impoverishment of asylum-seekers

We strongly contest a number of the arguments made by the Government to justify the low

levels of support provided to asylum-seekers, and the rationale for the creation of the separateNASS system.

Equivalency

Government justification for the lower levels of support paid to asylum-seekers appears to

have changed over the last three years. In June 1999, the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw MP

stated in the House of Commons:

The proposed provision is set at 70% of the equivalent income support because the asylum supportsystem is intended to be on a short-term basis, a safety-net arrangement, and it should be possible to

live on these amounts for short periods only.5

Since that time, the Government has failed to fulfil its originally stated intention to bring down

the time it takes to resolve asylum cases to six months, and large numbers of asylum-seekers

are living on NASS support for much longer periods. In May 2002, Angela Eagle MP, HomeOffice Minister, responded to a question on the 70% rate in a written answer:

The levels of asylum support for adults are set at 70% of income support levels because,

unlike those in receipt of income support, NASS-supported asylum-seekers receive free,

furnished accommodation, equipped with all necessary utensils, bedding, towels, etc., and

with all their utility bills paid by NASS on top of their cash subsistence payments. In addition,

after six months in receipt of NASS support, asylum-seekers are eligible for an additionalsingle payment of 50. Taken as a package, the value of NASS support is broadly equal to the

support that was provided to asylum-seekers under the previous, cash-based system67

It is not possible to do an exact comparison between the levels of support between those

eligible to income support benefits and that given to asylum-seekers, as the in-kind support

that asylum-seekers receive cannot be valued definitively, although we are surprised at the

assertion that the average family of four spends 40 a week on utilities and household goods(see page 9). It is clear, however, that asylum-seekers not only receive a lower basic cash

payment, but they also lose out on a range of additional supplements and premiums that are

designed to enable income support recipients to deal with extra essential costs, hardships and

special needs. It is incontrovertible that:

5Hansard, Vol 333, Col 475, 15 June 19996Hansard, Written Answer, Col 598W, 10th May 20027 The cash-based system referred to here, presumably, is the system of benefits payable to port-of-entry

asylum applicants up until the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This was itself not equivalent to standard

income support rates payable to UK residents, as asylum-seekers were paid at the 90% urgent cases rate, and

were excluded from claiming benefits such as disability living allowance.

19


20/31

Asylum-seekers who choose to avoid dispersal in order to remain with friends andrelatives receive no in-kind supports at all

While the children of asylum-seekers receive 100% of the income support rate, the loss ofFamily Premium reduces the overall family income back down to 70 - 80% of income

support rates Vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with a disability receive no premiums to

help them meet additional costs such as extra cold-weather clothing, special diets, lack ofmobility etc. Payments for exceptional needs are discretionary and our entire study only

revealed one individual to whom it had been paid

Asylum-seekers cannot access social fund grants or loans to help with unexpected costs or

emergencies

Newly-arrived asylum-seekers, who often arrive with nothing, from a much warmerclimate, have to wait six months before they can apply for a 50 supplement to buy

additional items like clothing

The maternity grant payable to asylum-seekers is 200 less than that paid by the Sure Start

Maternity Grant of 500 payable to UK residents. It can only be claimed during a six-weekperiod, and is only payable 2 weeks before the due date. Expectant mothers may not be

able to buy maternity clothes at an advanced stage of their pregnancy. If the baby arrives

early, or if the payment is late, the mother may go in to labour without having been able tobuy nappies, baby clothes or any basic equipment.

Mothers who are unable to breastfeed (because they are HIV+, suffering from stress ordepression, for example) are unable to claim Welfare Foods milk tokens in order to getfree formula milk for their babies.

The income support system was not designed as a single flat-rate payment, but as a system of

supports and safety nets that could be tailored to an individuals or familys particular

circumstances and essential needs, in order to prevent their living standards from droppingbelow an acceptable minimum. Furthermore, NASS incompetence and the failure of

accommodation providers to supply adequate facilities mean that asylum-seekers have to waitan unacceptably long time for money or goods, or do not receive them at all. It is clear that

asylum-seekers are having to survive, sometimes for prolonged periods of time, without any

such safety net. Evidence from our study suggests that, all too often, asylum-seekers areslipping into severe poverty and hardship.

Deterrence

The Government justifies its current asylum policy and the establishment of a separate system

of support on the grounds that many bogus asylum-seekers come to this country simply inorder to live off the State, and that providing a lower level of support will help to deter invalidclaims for asylum. In fact, there is little evidence to support such an argument. Since the UK

Government started to implement policies to restrict asylum-seekers access to benefits,

beginning in 1996, the number of asylum claims in the UK has risen from 29,640 (1996) to72,430 (2001). The number of applications did fall in 2001, compared with the previous year,

but figures for the first quarter of 2002 indicate that they are rising again. The Home Secretary

himself has noted that:

20


21/31


22/31

voices, including trade unions, churches, MPs and peers, and Labours own National

Executive Committee.

Consistency with other Government policies

The establishment of a parallel and separate system of support for asylum-seekers does little tobreak down barriers between asylum-seekers and the public, or to promote understanding.

Above all such a policy seems to run in direct contradiction to other Government policies:

The Social Exclusion Unit was set up to combat the marginalisation of disadvantagedgroups in society, yet asylum-seekers are isolated and marginalized by a parallel system

that forces them to live in poverty through the insufficiency of the basic system of

entitlements, the inadequacy of the bureaucratic structures put in place to administer the

system, and the use of accommodation providers who do not fulfil their contracts

The Government promotes of the integration of ethnic minorities in a multi-culturalsociety, yet asylum-seekers are consigned to a parallel system of support which excludes

and stigmatises them, both by its separateness and by the poverty in which they are forcedto live

The Government has made a commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2019, yet asylum-seeker families are unable to claim a range of benefits to meet their basic needs.

This Government has enshrined within our domestic law the European Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which states that: Theenjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without

discrimination on any groundsuch as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or

other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birthor other status. (Article 14, italics added). Similar clauses exist in the International

Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (Article 2) and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 2) to which the UK is also a signatory. Yethe rights of asylum-seekers are undermined by a system that consistently undermines theirbasic health and welfare.

22


23/31

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Government first argued that it is justifiable for asylum-seekers to live on a lower level of

support because they will only have to do so for a short time, while their claim for asylum is

assessed. Yet the Government has failed to meet its pledge to bring down adjudication times to

six months, and many asylum-seekers are left surviving on an inadequate level of income forlong periods while they wait for a final decision on their case.

The Government has argued more recently that the support to asylum-seeker are roughly

equivalent to those available previously on welfare benefits, when in kind benefits are taken

into account. The report demonstrates that, when premiums and other passported benefits are

taken into account, the support available to asylum-seekers falls well short of that available toIncome Support claimants. Often those who lose out are the most vulnerable: pregnant

women, mothers with babies, children, the elderly and people with disability or chronic ill-

health.

The removal of benefits from asylum-seekers, a process first started back in 1996, has notproved to be effective either in reducing the number of asylum-seekers coming to this country,or in improving race relations. The separate system of support for asylum-seekers creates

levels of poverty amongst these people that undermine other Governmental policies on social

exclusion, integration, child poverty and human rights.

We urge the Government to undertake urgent reforms to the system of support to asylum

seekers, as outlined in theRecommendations below, in order to alleviate the worst injustices

of the current system.

Key Recommendations

The remit of the Social Security Advisory Committee should be expanded to include

scrutiny of the standard of support to asylum-seekers. The Committee should be

charged with the task of ensuring that the level of support to asylum-seekers, in cash

or in kind, actually equates to the total of benefits available to recipients of Income

Support. This will involve a realistic calculation of the value of in kind benefits such as

the provision of utilities, as well as the provision of payments for additional, exceptional

and emergency needs.

The option for asylum-seekers to live with friends and relatives with support from

NASS should be retained. The weekly allowance to these people should be up-rated toinclude a contribution towards the cost of utilities and Council Tax.

Given the low level of support to which asylum seekers are entitled, those with

particular needs (including pregnant women, families with young children, people

with disabilities, victims of torture and the elderly) should have access to special

needs provision and passported benefits (e.g. milk tokens, vitamins, maternity grants,

pensioner premiums, and funeral grants) on the same terms as UK citizens.

23


24/31

Specific Recommendations

Uprating of Support

All payments to asylum-seekers should be automatically up-rated annually in linewith the cost of living.

Access to Passported Benefits

The additional grant of 50 payable after six months should also be paid when

asylum-seekers first claim support, in order to allow them to buy clothing or other

essential items immediately. All these grants should be paid automatically each time,

without having to be applied for.

All asylum-seeker mothers should be able to claim milk tokens and vitamins under

the Welfare Foods Scheme, on the same basis as Income Support claimants. Thisshould be implemented immediately in order to prevent further risk to the health of

new-born and young children.

The Maternity Grant should be increased to 500, in line with the Sure Start

Maternity Grant and should be available to asylum-seekers on the same basis as the

Sure Start grant (i.e. from the 29th

week of pregnancy up until the baby is 3 months

old). This grant should be available to all supported asylum-seeker mothers,

regardless of who is providing their support (NASS or Local Authority).

Additional support for extra costs associated with disability and chronic ill-health

should be payable by NASS, and proper procedures should be established for

applying for such payments, both at the stage of the initial application for support,

and later.

Cash allowances to asylum-seekers over the age of 65 should be up-rated to include

the equivalent of the Pensioner Premium.

A grant for funeral expenses should be available.

Operation of NASS

NASS administrative systems should be expanded and improved in order to avoid the

numerous delays and failures in payments that currently occur.

NASS services should be regionalised and made easily accessible at a local level so

that asylum-seekers can immediately make contact to report problems with

payments.

24


25/31


26/31

Appendix 1 - Oxfam /Refugee Council Questionnaire on Asylum

Seeker Incomes

1.Name of your organisation (if you wish to give it)

2.Area of country you work inLondon-based 21UK-wide 3Other areas 15N/A - 1

2.a) Is this a dispersal area? (Please circle your answer) Yes 15No 21N/A - 4

Please briefly describe your organisation (e.g., local voluntary organisation, refugee communityorganisation etc)

3. How many asylum-seekers living on NASS/Interim support does your organisation see:

1 10 per week 15

10 20 per week 5

20 50 per week 4

Other (please specify) 16 ( 50-100 pw 2, 100+ pw 14)

4. In general, would you say these people have enough money to be:

YES NOPlease comment (If necessarycontinue on a separate sheet)

Able to buy enough food? 20 20

Able to buy clothes? 2 38

Able to buy shoes? 1 39

Able to buy food for special dietary needse.g. diabetes?

0 40

Able to maintain good health? 5 32 No answer 3

Able to keep in touch with their lawyer? 14 20 Depends on where lawyer is 6

Able to travel to importantinterviews/appointments?

4 35 Depends where appt is 1

Able to keep in touch with family/friends? 3 34 No answer 3

Able to engage in adult educationalactivities?

23 15 No answer 2

Able to engage in recreational activitiesat least once a week?

7 32 No answer 1

26


27/31

5. Who is the main accommodation provider(s) in your area:

Please tick

NASS -Private landlord(s) 26

NASS -Local Authority Consortium 13

Local Authority Interim - Private Landlord 10

Local Authority Interim - Other 7Other (please specify) 5

More than one provider in some areas

6. For those people who receive accommodation, does their accommodation provideringeneral:

YES NO Please comment (if necessary pleasecontinue on a separate sheet)

Pay all utility bills(gas/electric/water/Council Tax)?

25 3

Supply utilities(gas, electric, water),

but at a charge to the asylum seeker

11 5

Supply utilities but with limitationsplaced on their use e.g. no heatingafter 7.00pm

2 5

Supply all necessary furniture andhousehold equipment, includingbedlinen, towels, cooking utensils,crockery and cutlery, baby cots etc?

8 13 Not always/inadequately provided 12Not answered 7

More than one method of providing utilities ticked by some organisations. First 3 sections of questionbadly designed so results not used

7.a) Do you see any asylum-seekers who are living on NASS cash-only support i.e. providingtheir own accommodation? Yes 35 No 5

7.b) If yes, which of the following best describes the accommodation arrangements:Mostly staying with friends Yes - 24Mostly staying with family Yes - 15Mostly staying in community accommodation (mosque/church) Yes - 2A mixture of the above Yes - 10(If yes to any of the above please give more detail below)A number of organisations answered yes to more than one description

Any Comment?

7.c) Do these people receive any supplementary support towards the cost of their utility billsfrom any other source? No - 33

N/A - 7

Any comment?

27


28/31

8.a) Do your clients know they are entitled to claim an extra 50 if their asylum case is stilloutstanding after 6 months (and every 6 months after that)? Yes 22

No 18

8.b) Do your clients find it easy to make this claim? Yes 18No 21N/A 1

8.c) When claimed, does the 50 supplement, arrive promptly? Yes - 3No 27

Sometimes - 2N/A - 8

8.d) Is this payment adequate to meet essential clothing needs? Yes - 2No 33N/A - 5

8.e) If no, please comment below

Any comment? (E.g. how long do payments take to arrive?)

9. Do your clients know they can claim a 300 maternity payment on the birth of a child?Yes - 30

No 10

9.a) Do your clients find it easy to make this claim? Yes - 16No - 22N/A - 2

9.b) When people claim the maternity payment, does it arrive promptly? Yes 9

No 23N/A - 7

9.c) Is the Maternity Payment adequate to meet maternity costs? Yes - 7No- 26N/A 7

Any comment?

10. Do you have any clients who receive/have received additional payments from NASSbecause of Exceptional Needs? No 38

N/A - 2

If yes, please give details

28


29/31

10.a) Do you have any clients who were unsuccessful in getting additional payments NASSbecause of "Exceptional needs"? Yes 12

No - 26N/A - 2

If yes, please give details

11. Do you have any clients with a disability? Yes - 32No 8

11.a) If yes have they been referred to Social Services? Yes - 28No - 4

11.b) If yes have they received a written Social Services Community Care Assessment?Yes - 14

No 11N/K - 3

11.c) If yes are they receiving additional support /services as a result of the assessment?Yes 11No - 2N/K - 1

If yes please describe

12. Does your organisation ever give emergency/subsistence money to asylum-seekers toenable them to buy essential items? Yes 29

No 11(4 organisations answering no specified they did not have the money to do so)

Any comments? (e.g. frequency, amount, what to buy etc)

29


30/31

13. Has your organisation seen any clients who have expressed the following concerns:

Never Sometimes Frequently

Delay/non-arrival of cash/vouchers 2 4 29

Distance to nearest Post Office 9 20 8

Experiencing hunger 5 23 11

Working illegally to earn money for food/otheressentials 9 18 9

Inability to buy school uniforms 4 13 22

Inability to buy warm winter clothing/shoesetc

0 14 25

Inability to afford bus fares to school 4 16 20

Mothers not able to breastfeed and unable tobuy infant formula

7 16 12

Isolation due to inability to visit friends/familyetc

2 11 25

Adjustments to payments (e.g. for new child)not arriving on time

6 12 19

Inability to contact NASS when problems

occur

1 8 29

Accommodation provider not paying utilitybills

14 13 2

Accommodation provider not providingadequate furniture/household equipment

2 18 19

Health and well being of children 3 21 14

Other (please comment below)

Where answers do not add up to 40, question has not been answered by some respondents

Any comment?

30


31/31

Appendix 2 Organisations responding to the questionnaire

Some organisations elected not to be named. Organisations responding to the study included:

North of England Refugee Service - Newcastle

Refugee Action South CentralRefugee Housing Association South YorkshireIranian Community Centre London

Hillingdon Refugee Support Group London

The Hanlon Centre Haringay, LondonRefugee Arrivals Project South East England

Refugee Council Ipswich East

Unity Organisation Multicultural Centre North East EnglandScottish Refugee Council Scotland

Refugee Council Yorkshire & Humberside

Refugee Council Leeds

North of England Refugee Services Tees ValleyRefugee Action South West England

The Renewal Programme Newham

Haringay Somali Centre Haringay, LondonWomens Ivory Coast Tower Assoc Southwark, London

Congolese Youth Association London

Refugee Health Access Project Barnet, LondonMama Africa Womens Assoc London

Sangayi Assoc London

Medical Foundation London

Afghan Association of London UK

Refugee Network Southwark, LondonSomali Community Information Centre London

Great lakes Initiative & Support Project UKRefugee Council London

Refugee Council London

Congolese Voluntary Organisation Croydon, London

Documents

Poverty and Asylum in the UK: Oxfam and the Refugee Council